Bernie Masters is a geologist/zoologist who spent 8 years as a member of the Western Australian Parliament. Married to Carolina since 1976 and living in south west WA, Bernie is involved in many community groups. This blog offers insights into politics, the environment and other issues that annoy or interest him. For something completely different, visit www.fiatechnology.com.au for information about vegetated floating islands - the natural way to improve water quality.

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Government corruption and the local government referendum

The following article appeared in the June 11 edition of ON LINE opinion- see http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/print.asp?article=15103 . It makes a good case for voting against the referendum to recognise local government in the Australian constitution.

Government corruption and the local government referendum

David Galloway
Posted Tuesday, 11 June 2013

Australians love to knock back a
referendum. But if you're looking for a good reason to vote "no" in the
September 14 referendum, you might want to consider this.

We're being asked to approve a change to section 96 of the
Constitution, so the Commonwealth can provide direct financial
assistance to local government authorities.

That sounds harmless enough, until you sit the amendment next to the
Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997and realise that,
together, they create the perfectpork barrel.
To understand why, it's helpful to know a little about the High Court's judgement in Williams v The Commonwealth. This judgement gave us a refresher in good governance by pointing out
what every parliamentarian should know. There are three arms of
government, and democracy depends on each doing its job properly. The Executive (in practice the PM, Ministers and senior bureaucrats)
manages the business of government. Parliament makes laws and stops the
Executive becoming too authoritarian, while Courts interpret and apply
laws.

As part of this separation of powers, the High Court ruled that the
constitution prevents the Executive from spending public money on
whatever it likes. Instead, spending must be authorised by a
constitutional head of power and approved by Parliament through law.

The Court had to think about this because Williams objected to the
Howard, Rudd and Gillard governments paying taxpayer's money to
Scripture Union Queensland. And it turned out there was no law approving
the payments, making them unlawful. As a journalist might put it; Howard, Rudd and Gillard had been caught illegally funnelling money to religious fundamentalists.

On closer examination, it emerged that successive Executives had been
spending quite a lot of our money improperly for a very long time.
What's more, the Coalition and Labor were equally culpable. This was a big problem, and fixing it would be difficult. So the
Executive decided to do the irresponsible thing, it asked Parliament to
pass the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No3) (The final Act can be found here) .

In a truly Orwellian twist, this amended the Financial Management and
Accountability Act to ensure the Executive was not accountable for its
financial management by giving it authority to:
(1) make, vary or administer any arrangement by which public money is paid out by the Commonwealth;
(2) grant financial assistance to any person whatsoever; and
(3) enter into whatever future programs it wished.
So long as expenditure falls under one of a broad range of existing
descriptions or a new regulation, the Executive could pay out vast
amounts of our money without Parliamentary supervision.

This was legislation no democratically elected Parliament should
pass, but ours did. What's more, politicians of all colours; red, blue,
green and independent share responsibility. If ever there was a time to run from the House, complain loudly about
mismanagement or make a stand on principle this was it. But, despite
some ineffectual protests from the opposition, there was just no one
left to keep the bastards honest.

Normally reserved legal scholars
have roundly condemned Parliament for agreeing to the Bill, so I won't
revisit that issue. Suffice to say that, if actions speak louder than
words, our elected representatives have told us they're not fit to wield
the powers they already have. So why would we give them more?
Which brings us to the perfect pork barrel.

The risk of corruption, mismanagement and waste in government has
increased sharply now the Executive can decide how to spend vast amounts
of public money without effective Parliamentary scrutiny. But some
restrictions do remain. One of these is section 96 of the Constitution, the same section
we're being asked to change. S 96 prevents the Commonwealth from
directly funding local authorities by requiring it to provide funding to
the States. That doesn't mean Commonwealth money can't go to local
authorities. Only that States generally administer and negotiate grants,
which limits the ability of both to misuse funds. But even that control would vanish if the referendum succeeded,
allowing the Executive to direct funding to local authorities on
whatever terms it desired.

Should we believe that future Executives will all wield this power in
the best interest of the nation? Or should we suspect it might be
misused by self interested politicians to target marginal electorates
and keep themselves in power? A financial gerrymander if you will.

Amending section 96 to "recognise local authorities" is an invitation
to corruption and mismanagement because it will allow the Executive to
determine on a street by street basis, if it wishes, what local
authorities can and can't do. It will allow taxpayer's money to be
misused to shore up marginal electorates, pay off political favours and
generally pork barrel on a scale never before possible.

If that doesn't disturb you, keep in mind that NSW government
corruption is largely the product of unchecked Executive power at state
level. Do we really want to witness a similar spectacle at federal
level?
It's in everyone's interests for the Executive to be held
accountable. But if Parliament declines to do its job and if the
Executive thinks it can treat the High Court with distain, then who's
left? Certainly not the media, it's too busy with big issues like Tony's
cycling or Julia's glasses.